The Forum > Article Comments > Why we allow the destruction of our planet > Comments
Why we allow the destruction of our planet : Comments
By David Swanson, published 15/5/2013When a large portion of the population believes that catastrophe is a good thing, rather than a bad thing, the influence is toxic.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
-
- All
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 7:46:01 PM
| |
Oh pish and tish, cohenite,
Let Andy "show" you what's happening with Arctic ice...(I'm sure you're a fan) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgiMBxaL19M And never let it be said that the leader of the free world isn't hard at work developing a strategy to take advantage of any more accessible resources on offer in that region. http://m.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/05/10/national-strategy-arctic-region-announced Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 7:56:14 PM
| |
Runner. Your lot has been waiting for 2000 years for Jesus to return. You will still be waiting for another 2000 years by which time perhaps the penny will have dropped and you will realize that your waiting is in vain. He isn't coming mate, get used to it.
David Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 8:07:37 PM
| |
VK3AUU
'Your lot has been waiting for 2000 years for Jesus to return. ' Yeah and Israels enemies have tried desperately for 2000 years to wipe out the Jews. As foretold clearly in Scripture they lose. The global warmist (formerly the ice agers) prophecies have proven to be nothing short of pathetic. As I stated in my last post, I know who never lied and prophecy after prophecy has come true including the arrogrance of the secularist. Posted by runner, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 8:23:51 PM
| |
You're hopeless Poirot; pure gullibility; 1979 was the highest Arctic sea ice level in the 20thC:
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ScreenHunter_102-Mar.-03-07.04.jpg Naturally ice levels have come down since then but they are still below levels in the near past. I can't believe you believe this rot. Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 8:52:44 PM
| |
When they can produce NASA pictures spanning a couple of thousand years we might get somewhere. Why even a few brain scans of some gullibles would do the trick.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 9:22:08 PM
|
Good, let's have a conversation about the dearth of evidence to support AGW beginning with every alarmist's favourite whipping boy, the Arctic.
The 2012 summer Arctic melt was the largest in the satellite era according to NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-seaicemin.html
Reading the fine print that melt was exacerbated by a large storm but NASA says in the past with thicker ice the storm effect would not have been so large.
The 2013 growth in Summer ice was the largest in the satellite era:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/screenhunter_175-feb-12-10-35.jpg
There is no doubt the Arctic ice extent was much less than today in the near geological past:
http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf
It is also a fact that the rate of temperature increase in the Arctic was greater in the 1930's:
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pd
Chylek and Folland are leading experts and attribute Arctic ice levels to Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation.
Another interesting theory is based on a polar oscillation, that is, when the Arctic is warm, the Antarctic is colder and vice-versa:
http://www.princeton.edu/~cmngroup/13_Science_Editors_Choice.pdf
Right now the Antarctic is the coldest it has been in the satellite era with its greatest extent of sea-ice.
AGW is not needed to explain the Arctic 'melting'.